Recently, I began research for a book. The book, when done, will document the personal history of the successful and often turbulent story of the greek community at Iowa State University.

Granted, my book will not make it onto the nation’s best seller list, but I am writing the book for personal reasons. As we are at ISU for an education, the writing and research involved in writing such a book is an invaluable experience to me.

I began my research by looking into the various history books that the university has on the topic, including faculty and student biographies, old copies of the Aurora (the predecessor of the Daily) and the Daily.

I was not shocked at all to find out that the establishment of fraternities and sororities has met with some opposition over the years. Heck, the damn dormies have been trying to snuff us out for years. But what bothered me most was the fact that an ex-president of the university, for whom a building has been named, was a fraternity and sorority hater.

Rev. William Miller Beardshear, the so-called Abraham Lincoln of Iowa State University, openly opposed fraternities and sororities. And — I hope that you are sitting down for this one — he even went so far as to ban them from the campus while he was president of the university.

As a fraternity member, I am insulted at the fact that I must utilize a building erected to a man who so vehemently opposed my way of life, my friends and my social life. You will not catch me paying my tuition at the treasurer’s office anymore; I will send it through the mail from now on.

For this reason, I believe the name of Beardshear Hall should be changed as to not further perpetuate the hate and oppression already imparted by this man.

I don’t have a name for my group yet, as all the other good names are being used, and October just does not have the same ring as September. I will impart to you a brief history of President Beardshear so that you may understand the purpose and need for changing the building.

When Beardshear took over as president of the university, there had been many years of hostile disputes between the students and the faculty. He is noted for ending years of bitterness that had existed between the students and the faculty, which had been disturbing the best interests of the university. But at what cost did he achieve this peace?

In 1890, a new literary group was formed, consisting of fraternity and sorority members, but the group was met with strong opposition from similar existing societies and was forced to appeal for faculty protection in order to secure the usual privileges given to these types of groups. The matter was eventually turned over to President Beardshear.

According to Beardshear, the fighting between fraternity and non-fraternity members had gone on long enough and, therefore, the problem should be met head-on.

Beardshear decreed that, “from this date onward, no other student of this college shall be permitted to join a secret college fraternity,” therefore sounding a death toll for fraternities until 1905, when Beardshear’s predecessor lifted the ban. He brought about the abolition of all fraternal societies by a vote of trustees and faculty members, claiming that the time was not yet opportune for the existence of fraternal organizations at Iowa State College.

Without consideration of both sides, Beardshear decided, because fraternity and non-fraternity members could not get along, fraternities should be banned.

There is no proof that the fraternity members were troublemakers or were the cause of the disturbances.

However, Beardshear felt that by not allowing the formation of these groups he could control the problem. Later, at a banquet, the president “asserted his determination to rid the institution of the disturbing influence [of Greeks] regardless of the effect upon his position,” clearly stating that he did not care who he stepped on to stop the fighting.

No one can dispute the astounding contributions that members of greek organizations have made to the present-day nation. And fraternity and sororities were a reasonably new fad at the time (almost 100 years ago). But the problem lies in the fact that he opposed and oppressed the affiliation and formation of a student group based on the fact that they were different.

He did not afford them the common courtesies that he gave other similar groups. For these reasons, I claim that Beardshear hated fraternities and sororities.

In closing, based on this clear and obvious news, all fraternity and sorority members, alumni and faculty should be opposed to any building on this campus being named Beardshear Hall.

Maybe next week in my column I will discuss the effective use and understanding of sarcasm to make your point, or possibly the importance of judging people on all of their merits and not just a few isolated statements.

What I am really trying to drive home is the fact that many buildings are named for pioneering leaders who were not perfect. It is important to assess the person within the time period from which they lived. By doing that we can hopefully understand why they did or said some of the bad things they did.

Beardshear was a great leader who was made a tough decision in hopes of bringing the university closer together, making it a nationally recognized leader in education.

Carrie Chapman Catt did the same thing and should be recognized for her work in women’s suffrage — and not because she lived in a time when it was acceptable to own slaves. Furthermore, accepting her as a leader and someone to look up to does not mean that you accept her racist statements.

---

Marty Forth is a senior in journalism and mass communication from Waterdown, Ontario.